On Tue, 2004-02-03 at 17:41, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-02-03 at 10:10 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> > - Any particular reason for using gzip instead of bzip2? The difference
> > can be huge, especially for other.xml:
>> The difference in memory usage can be huge too -- bzip's memory
> footprint is far larger than gzip's and not really worth the compression
> savings in the vast majority of cases.
Sure bzip2 uses more memory but a box which can comfortably run FC 1 or
2 can afford whatever memory bzip2 uses. Heck my firewall box with 32MB
memory has no problems running apt and using bzip2 as package index
compression. In embedded space, and ok from installer point of view
(since it's you who mentions the memory usage :) things can be
different.
- Panu -